Public Document Pack
NORTH AND EAST PLANS PANEL
Meeting to be held in Civic Hall, Leeds on Thursday, 19th December, 2019 at 1.30 pm
MEMBERSHIP
Councillors
D Collins R Grahame D Jenkins E Nash K Ritchie (Chair) N Sharpe M Midgley T Smith B Anderson
Agenda compiled by: Debbie Oldham Governance Services Civic Hall Tel: 0113 3788656
Produced on Recycled Paper
A G E N D A
Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No
SITE VISIT LETTER
1 APPEALS AGAINST REFUSAL OF INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2 of the Access to Information Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded)
(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance Services at least 24 hours before the meeting)
2 EXEMPT INFORMATION - POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
1 To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.
2 To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.
3 If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-
RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:-
Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No
3 LATE ITEMS
To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration
(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes)
4 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS
To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-16 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.
5 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
6 MINUTES - 28TH NOVEMBER 2019 3 - 10
To received and approve the minutes of the meeting held on 28th November 2019.
7 Chapel 19/01665/FU - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 11 - Allerton OF 153NO. DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED 34 WORKS LAND OFF BECKHILL APPROACH & POTTERNEWTON LANE LEEDS
The report of the Chief Planning Officer requests Members consideration for a residential development of 153no. dwellings and associated works land off Beckhill Approach & Potternewton Lane, Leeds.
(Report attached)
Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No
8 Alwoodley 19/00385/FU - AGAINST THE DECISION TO 35 - REFUSE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE 44 RAISING OF ROOF TO FORM HABITABLE ROOMS; TWO STOREY PART FIRST FLOOR SIDE/REAR EXTENSION 22 PARK LANE MEWS LEEDS
The report of the Chief Planning Officer requests consideration of an appeal by Mr A Jonisz of 22 Park Lane Mews against the decision to refuse planning application for the raising of roof to form habitable rooms; two storey part first floor side/rear extension. The appeal was dismissed 4th November 2019.
(Report attached)
9 DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting will be on Thursday 23rd January 2019 at 1.30pm.
2
a) b)
Third Party Recording
Recording of this meeting is allowed to enable those not present to see or hear the proceedings either as they take place (or later) and to enable the reporting of those proceedings. A copy of the recording protocol is available from the contacts named on the front of this agenda.
Use of Recordings by Third Parties– code of practice
a) Any published recording should be accompanied by a statement of when and where the recording was made, the context of the discussion that took place, and a clear identification of the main speakers and their role or title. b) Those making recordings must not edit the recording in a way that could lead to misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the proceedings or comments made by attendees. In particular there should be no internal editing of published extracts; recordings may start at any point and end at any point but the material between those points must be complete.
Planning Services Merrion House To all Members of North and East Merrion Centre Plans Panel Leeds
Contact: David Newbury Tel: 0113 378 7990 [email protected]
Our reference: NE Site Visits Date: 11th December 2019
Dear Councillor
SITE VISITS – NORTH AND EAST PLANS PANEL – THURSDAY 19th December 2019
Prior to the meeting of the North and East Plans Panel on Thursday 19th December 2019 the following site visit will take place:
Time Ward 11.10am Depart Civic Hall 11.25am - 19/01665/FU – Residential development at land off Beckhill 11.45am Approach and Potternewton Lane, Meanwood 12.00 (noon) Return to Civic Hall
For those Members requiring transport, a minibus will leave the Civic Hall at 11.10am. Please notify David Newbury (Tel: 378 7990) if you wish to take advantage of this and meet in the Ante Chamber at 11.05am. If you are making your own way to a site please let me know and we will arrange an appropriate meeting point.
Yours sincerely
David Newbury Group Manager
www.leeds.gov.uk general enquiries 0113 222 4444 ®
Page 1 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6
NORTH AND EAST PLANS PANEL
THURSDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER, 2019
PRESENT: Councillor K Ritchie in the Chair
Councillors R Grahame, D Jenkins, E Nash, N Sharpe, M Midgley, T Smith and B Anderson
SITE VISITS
The site visits earlier in the day were attended by Councillors Ritchie, Grahame, Nash, Sharpe, Midgley, Smith and Anderson.
54 Appeals Against Refusal of Inspection of Documents
There were no appeals against refusal of inspection of documents.
55 Exempt Information - Possible Exclusion of the Press and Public
There were no exempt items.
56 Late Items
There were no late items.
57 Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests
No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made at the meeting.
58 Apologies for Absence
Apologies were received from Cllr. D Collins.
59 Minutes - 24th October 2019
RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 24th October 2019 be approved as a correct record, with the following amendments made to Minute 50 19/03390/FU – 9 The Laurels.
Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 19th December, 2019
Page 3 The applicant advised and confirmed to The Laurels residents that his in-laws would bring their car with them when they move into the extension The two storey extension would impact on the use of the garden at number 7 due to overshadowing The two storey extension would impact on the use of the garden at number 11 due to loss of privacy Residents of The Laurels were only made aware that a two storey extension was proposed by receipt of the Council Planning Application letter dated 8 July.
60 19/00867/FU - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR DWELLINGS GREYSTONES PARK ROAD COLTON LEEDS LS15 9AJ
The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of four dwellings, at Greystones, Park Road, Colton.
Members had attended a site visit earlier in the day. Photographs and slides were shown throughout the presentation.
The application was brought to Plans Panel as the proposal is within a prominent and sensitive site within Colton Conservation Area and had generated a significant amount of representations in the local community.
The proposal was for the demolition of an existing bungalow and construction of four dwellings. The bungalow has been demolished since the original submission along with timber outbuildings.
Members were informed of the following key points: The proposal is for four two storey dwellings, two fronting on to Meynell Road these would be linked by garages have four bedrooms, and two detached dwellings fronting onto Park Road; The houses would be constructed of brick with slate roofs, and timber window; The houses fronting onto Park Road would share one access point whilst the houses fronting onto Meynell Road would have their own vehicle and pedestrian access; A minimum of two open parking spaces are proposed for each dwelling in addition to the garages that are proposed for three of the four dwellings; The proposal also sets out an extension of the footpath on Meynell Road; The layout shows the retention of the majority of existing trees and hedges, and includes details of how construction would take place to provide retaining walls close to tree root systems. A slide was shown
Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 19th December, 2019
Page 4 during the presentation which showed the Panel how the tree roots were to be protected; The area is designated as part of the Colton Conservation Area. Beyond the Park Road Farm Buildings which are grade II listed to the South are open agricultural fields; The site shares it boundary with Holly Tree Cottage which is grade II listed; The application has received a number of objections these were set out at point 6.1 and 6.2 of the submitted report. It was noted that most of the objections received related to there being too many dwellings proposed, concerns had also been raised that the demolition of the bungalow had taken place too soon and that this could set a precedent; 2 further objections had been received since the publication of the report. These objections were read out to the Panel as follows: o Parking provision insufficient and will result in on street parking o Park Hill / Meynell Road dangerous junction and this will make it worse o Reducing scheme by one and increasing parking will help o Local residents concerns have not been addressed o Demolition of bungalow sets dangerous precedent o Wrong to demolish without appropriate permission o Impact on amenity o Drainage insufficient and surface water run-off The proposals meet the requirements of adequate separation between the proposed properties and those of neighbouring properties. Some relocation of the dwellings has taken place so that the dwellings are located further into the site but still able to maintain garden size.
Local residents attended the meeting and informed the Panel of the following: The Greystones site is within a conservation area with an elevated position which in their view would tower over the neighbouring properties; 4 properties is pushing the limits of the site’s capacity; Building would take place right up to the root protection area especially to the rear of the site where there is a hedge which may need to be removed to allow the building work to place; Consultee comments have continually repeated that this site is being overdeveloped and could only fit 2 or 3 appropriately sized dwellings; Overdevelopment of the site would cause problems of overshadowing, lack of privacy, increased traffic and highway safety issues; Highway concerns in relation to visibility splays, however the concerns were reduced due to the road now being in a 20 mph zone; Highway safety, Meynell Road and Park Road are no through roads but, Meynell Road is a thoroughfare for residential housing, Colton Chapel and Institute and horse riders. Park Road is used by residential houses, stable workers and riders, visitors and farm workers of the Temple Newsam Estate. The junction of Meynell Road and Park Hill is dangerous as cars are often parked close to the junction especially if there are events at the chapel;
Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 19th December, 2019
Page 5 The front door of Holly Tree Cottage opens on to Meynell Road.
The speaker in support of the application informed the Members of the following: The site had approval in principle for residential use on this site with a minimum of four to five units; The applicant has responded to all the comments from consultees and others who had provided comments; The scheme presented at the meeting had been revised numerous times and meets with highways requirements and has adequate parking, the garden space exceeds the space standards set out in the planning guidance. Aspect standards also exceed the design guidance; The height has been reduced the height of the proposed dwellings so that they are traditional standard two storey buildings. Reduced the scale as much as possible in reducing floor to floor so that the proposed dwellings sit in context with the listed buildings and neighbouring properties; Explained that the blue line shown on the plan it not the extent of the dropped levels it was the extent of the root protection area. The root protection area follows the line of the retained wall which will be constructed with a ‘sheet pile’ construction so that there is no damage to the roots; Properties on Park Road which abut the hedge with the site to be kept at existing level; The developers said that they had worked closely with the officers to amend this scheme and were now of the view that this plan now achieved a good development that will fit in well with its setting.
Members wanted assurance that the development would be as sustainable and energy efficient as possible. The Chair encouraged the developer to sign up to EN1 and EN2, it was noted that the developer was not obliged to sign up to these polices as this was a minor development.
Members requested the following: If hedges were damaged they should be replaced. Hard surfaces should be porous. Charging points installed A water butt provided to each property in relation to drainage and excessive run-off
Responding to Members questions the Panel were formed of the following: The bungalow was removed by a proper contractor if there were any contaminants they would have been removed securely. Officers advised the Members that soil samples could be taken to ensure that there were no contaminants left on the site before work commenced; Three small trees which have self-seeded will be removed from the site. Trees and hedges to the boundary will be retained. It is also the plan that landscaping would form part of the development. Trees of a set size would be protected by the developer;
Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 19th December, 2019
Page 6 House sizes are compliant with standards policy; Access points are acceptable and levels of parking are generous with no concerns raised by Highways; The footway extension on Meynell Road would improve access visibility and suitable dropped crossings would be provided; Two more developments are forthcoming further down Park Road on a Council owned site; Solar panels would be considered by the developer;
RESOLVED – To grant permission as set out in the submitted report with the following additional conditions: Water butts to be installed at each property in relation to drainage and excessive run-off; Porous surfaces to be used on driveways; Rear boundary hedges to be protected and retained and boundary treatments to rear gardens to be hedges.
61 PREAPP/19/00446 - REFURBISHMENT, RECONFIGURATION AND EXTENSION OF THE HOSPICE MARTIN HOUSE CHILDRENS HOSPICE GROVE ROAD BOSTON SPA WETHERBY LS23 6TX
The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out a pre-application for the refurbishment, reconfiguration and extension of Martin House Children’s Hospice, Grove Road, Boston Spa.
The pre-application enquiry had been submitted by WSP Indigo Planning on behalf of Martin House Children’s Hospice.
Members had attended a site visit earlier in the day. Photographs and slides were shown throughout the presentation.
The proposals submitted consist of the refurbishment of the existing accommodation and the provision of new accommodation to provide new ensuite children’s bedrooms, an education suite, parent’s bedrooms and staff facilities. An additional 26 car parking spaces are proposed.
The Hospice are aware that this location is within the green belt, however, they were of the view that the proposed extension was not disproportionate or inappropriate in this area. The access, parking, tress and neighbours had all been taken into account within their proposals.
Representation had been received from Wetherby Ward Members and Clifford Council both of whom provided supportive comments. A letter for the Wetherby Ward Members was read out by the Planning Officer.
The Panel were advised that Martin House was a community lead care facility which offered specialist and respite care and support for children and families from North, East and West Yorkshire. Care is provided to the children and families on a number of complex issues 24/7, 365 days a year. Martin House Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 19th December, 2019
Page 7 is a beacon of best practice both nationally and internationally. They invented the model of palliative care for children.
Members heard that technologies are changing and larger facilities were required for the numerous pieces of equipment which is need such as larger wheelchairs, hoists, TV’s etc.
It was noted that due to boiler problems the hospice has had to close on two occasions in the last two years and this issue would also be addressed as part of the refurbishment.
Children and families had been consulted as part of the process to ask them what they wanted. The refurbishment would include bedrooms with better access for bedrooms and ensuite bedrooms for privacy, separate entrance for those visiting the hospice, new access and egress to the site, homely feel for families and children, maintain the openness of the gardens which are used for events and act as a buffer to the new housing estate to the east of the site.
The current location is ideal as it is close to hospitals and also easily accessible for children and families across North, East and West Yorkshire.
The development would not be adding further bedrooms just making the bedrooms that they have better.
Members were required to answer a number of questions as set out in the submitted report: 9.5 Do Members have appropriate information to understand whether a case for ‘very special circumstances’ exists? YES 9.8 Do Members support the emerging scale, massing and design of the proposals? YES 9.12 Do Members have any comment to make on the applicant’s proposals at this time in respect of climate change? Members approved of the proposals. However requested that measures such as the use of heat source pumps could be incorporated – It was noted as the Hospice are looking to reduce running costs. 9.17 Do Members have any comments on the highways aspect of the proposals? – Members did not raise any specific concerns but noted that Highways had requested further information relating to car parking and the additional access that would be considered as part of the application when it comes forward. 9.21 Do Members have any comments on the landscape aspect of the proposal? Members liked the children’s garden and were happy that this feature would be retained after the extension. 9.23 Do Members have any comments about the accessibility aspects of the proposal? No. Members were of the view that their visit to the site had been of assistance in understanding the issues which need to be addressed.
RESOLVED – To note the content of the report.
Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 19th December, 2019
Page 8
The Chair thanked the speakers for their presentation and for the welcome that they had received during their visit to the site earlier in the day. He went on to thank the Hospice for all the work and support that was given to children and the families.
The Panel showed their appreciation of the work and support provided by the Hospice with a round of applause.
62 PREAPP/18/00077 - DEMOLITION OF A NUMBER OF BUILDINGS WITHIN THE SITE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PATHOLOGY FACILITY BUILDING ST JAMES HOSPITAL BECKETT STREET BURMANTOFTS LEEDS LS9 7TF
The Panel received the report of the Chief Planning Officer which set out a pre-application presentation for the demolition of a number of buildings within the site and the construction of a new Pathology facility building in their place at St James University Hospital, Beckett Street, Burmantofts, Leeds.
A number of speakers attended the meeting on behalf of the developer Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.
Members were informed by the developer’s team of the following key points: The development would be compliant with policy; It would be for hospital use; The proposal requires that 10 trees would be removed. Members were advised that this council had a policy that for every tree removed 3 would be planted. It was noted that this would be part of the indicative landscaping; Two Ward Members Cllrs Khan and Ragan had been consulted. As part of the consultation the Ward Members had requested that the new development should use, train and employ people from the local area. The developer was in communication with colleagues in Jobs and Skills and this would request would be taken into account through partnership working; These proposals form part of a wider ‘Leedsway’ across the hospital trust sites; Pathology currently is located in different buildings. This is not a patient facility but is for the diagnosis of illness and treatments through a variety of tests; The development seeks to demolish two 1960’s buildings which are located in the north-eastern corner of the hospital campus. The buildings are currently vacant with the site not having large footfall this site needs regeneration; The proposal is for a purpose built two storey building, plus a basement with a slight under croft, parking and landscaping; There would not be large volumes of traffic to the site but there was a specific need for a drop off facility for urgent deliveries and samples;
Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 19th December, 2019
Page 9 The boundary wall backing to existing streets would be retained; Advance work had taken place for funding purposes.
Members’ discussions included: Existing car parking issues in surrounding streets associated with the hospital; The construction of additional decks above existing surface level parking areas to increase parking capacity; Clarification on the number of additional staff on site at any time; Travel plans for staff working at the facility. Members proposed a number of options which included; o Staff permits o Park and ride o Shuttle bus including options for local people to use the service Request for the area for staff to have natural daylight; Future maintenance of trees. It was highlighted that there was a cherry tree on the site which had Velcro round it and this should be cut as it was starting to bite into the trunk of the tree Feasibility of using District Heating system which it was noted does serve properties in the area A green wall located on the wall to be retained close to neighbouring houses Use of cladding should be of an acceptable standard
It was the view that this would be good for Leeds and the local area with the procurement of work and jobs.
The Panel were required to answer a number of questions posed within the submitted report: 7.8 Do Members support the emerging scale, massing and design of the proposals? Do support the scale and massing. However, they were of the view that they need to see the full design and this should be brought to the Panel for consideration of reserved matters. 7.12 Do Members support the approach to parking and sustainable transport? Members require further information as the proposals progress and noted this was to come. 7.14 Do Members support the emerging landscape scheme? Members supported this in principle. However they put forward the suggestion of living roof, living wall and three trees to be planted for each tree removed.
RESOLVED – To note the report.
63 Date and Time of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the North and East Plans Panel will be on Thursday 19th December 2019 at 1.30pm.
Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 19th December, 2019
Page 10 Agenda Item 7
Originator: Stuart Daniel Tel: 0113 5350551
Report of the Chief Planning Officer -
NORTH AND EAST PLANS PANEL
Date: 19th December 2019
Subject: 19/01665/FU – Residential Development of 153 dwellings and associated works at land off Beckhill Approach and Potternewton Lane, Meanwood, Leeds
APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Taylor Wimpey Yorkshire 18th March 2019 17th June 2019
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For: Chapel Allerton Equality and Diversity Adjacent to: Moortown Community Cohesion Weetwood
Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (Referred to in report)
RECOMMENDATION: DEFER AND DELEGATE APPROVAL to the Chief Planning Officer subject to conditions set out below and the signing of a Section 111 agreement (to which a Sec.106 Agreement will be appended) to cover matters below, • Affordable housing – 11 properties in total • Real time passenger information display at a cost of £10,000 at bus stop 10858 • Bus shelter to be provided at a cost of £13,000 at bus stop 11123 • Travel Plan review fee £3384 • Residential Travel Plan Fund £82,082 • Commuted Sum for the Council to undertake the on-site greenspace works £475,514.39 • Local Employment & Skills Initiative • Off-site tree planting, to meet the requirements of Policy LAND2, within the Local Area
In the circumstances where the Section 111 Agreement has not been completed within 3 months of the Panel resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer Page 11
1. Standard time limit of 3 years to implement 2. Plans to be approved 3. Samples of materials to be submitted 4. Samples of materials for the new access road for the attenuation tank to be submitted 5. Improved visibility for plot 7 6. Details of cycle/motorcycle storage facilities 7. Details of EV Charging Points 8. Maximum gradient of access road shall not exceed 1 in 40 for the first 15m and 1 in 20 thereafter 9. Maximum gradient of any pedestrian access shall not exceed 1 in 20 10. Parking spaces for plots 126-149 shall be made available for any resident and not designated to a specific plot 11. Submission of a revised site layout showing disabled parking for any shared parking areas 12. No development to commence until details of any off site highways works identified on plan 18098/GA/01 have been approved with the works implemented prior to first occupation 13. All vehicle spaces to be fully laid out, surfaced and drained prior to first occupation 14. Existing highway condition survey to be undertaken and submitted along with any necessary mitigation works. These works shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation 15. Construction Management Plan to be submitted to and approved before development commences 16. Development to be carried out in accordance with the Sustainability report & confirmation of works to be submitted & approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) 17. Verification that sustainability measures implemented 18. Details of proposed water butts 19. Location and detail of proposed PV panels 20. No removal of trees, hedges or shrubs between March-August 21. A plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA of: integral bat roosting features within buildings; and bird nesting features (for species such as House Sparrow, Starling, Swift, Swallow and House Martin) to be provided within buildings and elsewhere on-site. All approved features shall be installed prior to first occupation of the dwellings. 22. Prior to development commencing, a method statement for the control and eradication of Japanese Knotweed shall be submitted to & approved in writing by the LPA 23. No building or other obstruction including landscape features shall be located over or within: • 6.5m either side of the 762mm public combined sewer • 5m either side of the 450mm & 381 public combined sewers • 4m either side of the 305mm & 229mm public combined sewer 24. The site shall be developed with separate drainage for foul and surface water on and off site
Page 12 25. No piped discharge of surface water from the application site shall take place until works to provide a satisfactory outfall have been completed 26. Development shall not commence until a drainage scheme (i.e. drainage drawings, summary calculations and investigations) detailing the surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority 27. Development shall not be brought into use/occupied until a SUD’s management and maintenance plans for the development has been approved 28. Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 70.5mAOD (Above Ordinance Datum) 29. Prior to being discharged to any watercourse, all surface water drainage from parking and hard-standings shall be passed through trapped gullies installed in accordance to a scheme which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA 30. Before development commences, a flood exceedance plan shall be submitted to & approved in writing by the LPA for events greater than the 1 in 100 plus 30% climate change event 31. No building works shall commence until a revised Phase II Desk Study has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority 32. Remediation works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Remediation Statement 33. Any soil or soil forming materials brought to site for use in garden areas, soft landscaping, public open space or for filling and level raising shall be tested for contamination and suitability for use 34. Remove permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings 35. Full details of landscaping scheme and implementation 36. Tree protection measures for retained trees
1.0 INTRODUCTION:
1.01 The application seeks planning permission for a residential development of 153 dwellings. Following a discussion with the Chair it was considered appropriate to report the application to Plans Panel as it is a major development which the Chair considers would have significant impacts on local communities. The land is allocated on the Site Allocations Plan under two separate allocations. HG2-85 gives a minimum indicative capacity of 79 units with HG1-207 giving a minimum capacity of 34 units.
2.0 PROPOSAL:
2.01 The proposal relates to the erection of 153 dwellings consisting of 24 apartments and 129 dwellings. All of the flats would be 2 bed with the dwellings consisting of 31 two bed, 72 three bed & 26 X four bed at a vacant site located off Beckhill Approach.
2.02 The land is roughly rectangular in shape and is bounded by Beckhill Approach to the south-east, Stainbeck Road to the north-west and Potternewton Lane to the south-west. The site formally contained a school
Page 13 (and associated playing pitches) and some sheltered accommodation, though these have been demolished some years ago. The site has ‘greened over’ though the hard standings of the buildings remain evident of site.
2.03 The site would be split into two sections, the southern part of the site would be accessed from Potternewton Lane with the northern portion accessed from Beckhill Approach. Connecting the two portions would be an area of POS (Public Open Space) running roughly north-south and would connect into an area of existing green infrastructure running roughly south-west to north-east.
2.04 The proposals create a development of predominantly semi-detached dwellings with a small number of terraced blocks of 3 properties within each block. The dwellings would be generally two storeys with some units having rooms within the roof. Two, 3 storey apartment blocks would be constructed to the south-eastern portion of the site.
2.05 The area of on-site greenspace would be a central feature of the development and would contain a MUGA (Multi Use Games Area) and an informal play area. The linear section running roughly east-west would contain footpath connections and the existing trees within this area would be largely retained. It is proposed that the Council will undertake the works though the developer will provide the funds (secured through a section 106).
2.06 Parking is to be provided within the curtilage of each dwelling with the apartments having a parking area adjacent to their respective blocks. Visitor parking is to be provided in accordance with current standards. External works are also proposed to the road on Beckhill Approach where a revised turning area is proposed. Alterations are also proposed to the existing retaining wall located to the south-east of the site which is associated with the existing dwellings. These works would consist visual improvements to the wall.
3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS:
3.01 The application site is a predominantly greenfield piece of land measuring approximately 5ha and is roughly rectangular in shape. The site is effectively split into two with a belt of trees running north-south dividing the site. The land is bounded by Beckhill Approach to the south-east which is located at a higher level to the application site. Along the Beckhill Approach frontage there are a large number of trees which form part of the embankment down into the site. The site itself does slope down generally north-south to the lowest point being at Potternewton Lane.
3.02 Within the site itself, there are the remnants of the former buildings (school and apartments). The remaining areas are greenfield in nature. Part of the site is fenced off though the more southern portion of the site remains
Page 14 predominantly open. There are also a number of self-seeded trees which are of poor quality and offer little in the way of public amenity.
3.03 Running parallel to the application site, roughly north-south, is a footpath which extends the full length of the site. Along the more northern part of the site are a number of trees which act as an informal boundary to the site. This footpath network extends far beyond the application site, connecting Stainbeck Lane to the north with Meanwood Road to the south.
3.04 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature with a mix of house types. To the south-east is the Beckhills estate which consists of predominantly terraced housing in a linear formation. To the north-west, along Stainbeck Lane are a serious of two storey terraced blocks containing flats with parking courts between each block. The local centre of Meanwood is approximately 300 yards to the west along Potternewton Lane.
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
4.01 10/02224/LA – Outline application for residential development comprising of 34 C3 and 45 C2 units. Approved
5.0 HISTORY OF NEGOTATIONS
5.01 The scheme has been subject to a number of revisions and alterations as officers raised concerns over the level of tree loss proposed, the amount of development proposed, issues of non-compliance with the space standards and private amenity space.
5.02 The amended scheme now proposes 153 dwellings (rather than 164 units as originally proposed), most house types are now space standard compliant (bed 4 within one house type is slightly under the required size) and garden amenity space would now comply with policy.
6.0 PUBLIC/LOCAL RESPONSE:
6.01 Site notices were posted around the application site on Potternewton Lane, Stainbeck Road, Beckhill Approach and Farm Hill North on 2nd April 2019. No representations have been received as part of this publicity.
6.02 Councilor’s from the Chapel Allerton ward have been informed of the application as have Members from the adjacent wards (Moortown and Weetwood). No comments have been received from ward members
7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
7.01 Environment Agency – No comments to make
7.02 Sport England – No comments to make
Page 15 7.03 West Yorkshire Combined Authority – Recommend bus stop improvements and a contribution to the sustainable travel fund
7.04 Travelwise Team – No objections subject to conditions relating to EV charging Points, Cycle parking & contributions relating to the Travel Plan review fee and a Travel Plan fund
7.05 Coal Authority – No objections
7.06 Environmental Studies Transport Strategy Team – No objections
7.07 Nature Team – No objections subject to conditions
7.08 Yorkshire Water – No objections, subject to conditions
7.09 West Yorkshire Police – No objections, its encouraged that the developer achieves a secured by design certification
7.10 Highways – No objections subject to conditions
7.11 Flood Risk Management – No objections subject to conditions
7.12 Contaminated Land – The remediation Strategy requires further investigation, conditions recommended.
7.13 Landscape – Object to the proposal due to the level of tree loss proposed.
8.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:
8.01 Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Development Plan
8.02 The development plan for Leeds is made up of the adopted Core Strategy (as amended 2019), saved policies from the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (UDP), Site Allocations Plan (2019) the Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan (2017) and the Natural Resources and Waste Development Plan Document (DPD), adopted January 2013 and any made Neighbourhood Plans.
8.03 Relevant Policies from the Core Strategy are:
Spatial policy 1 Location of development Policy H1 Managed release of sites Policy H3 Density of residential development Policy H4 Housing Mix Policy H5 Affordable Housing Policy H9 House Standards
Page 16 Policy H10 Accessibility Policy P10 Design Policy P12 Landscape Policy T1 Transport Management Policy T2 Accessibility requirements and new development Policy G1: Enhancing and extending green infrastructure Policy G4: Greenspace provision Policy G6: Protecting existing Green Space Policy G9: Biodiversity improvements Policy EN1: Carbon Dioxide reductions Policy EN2 Sustainable design and construction Policy EN4 District heating network Policy EN5 Managing flood risk Policy EN8 Electric Vehicle Charging
8.04 Relevant Saved Policies from the UDP are:
GP5: General planning considerations. N23/ N25: Landscape design and boundary treatment. BD5: Design considerations for new build. T7A: Cycle parking. LD1: Landscape schemes. N39B – Culverting or canalization of watercourses
8.05 Relevant DPD Policies are:
GENERAL POLICY1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development. AIR1 – Major development proposals to incorporate low emission measures. WATER1 – Water efficiency, including incorporation of sustainable drainage WATER7 – No increase in surface water run-off, incorporate SUDs. LAND1 – Land contamination to be dealt with. LAND2 – Development should conserve trees and introduce new tree planting.
8.06 Site Allocations Plan:
The SAP was adopted in July 2019 so carries full weight in any decision making. The site is allocated within the SAP under references HG1-207 (indicative minimum capacity of 34 units) and HG2-85 (indicative capacity of 79 units).The site requirements contained within the SAP for HG8-85 state: Any development should pay due consideration to the ‘Beckhill Neighbourhood Framework 2014. The site is suitable for older person’s housing/independent living in accordance with Policy HG4. The site contains a culvert or canalized watercourse. Development proposals should consider re-opening or restoration in accordance with saved UDP Policy N39B
Page 17 There is a policy within the SAP which are also relevant to this application which is:
Policy HDG2 – housing allocations
Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents
8.07 The following SPGs and SPDs are relevant:
SPG13 – Neighbourhoods for Living: A Guide for Residential Design in Leeds Street Design Guide SPD Parking SPD Travel Plans SPD Sustainable Construction SPD Beckhill Neighbourhood Framework
National Planning Policy
8.08 The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in 2019, and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), published March 2014 set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. One of the key principles at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of Sustainable Development. Relevant paragraphs are highlighted below.
Paragraph 12 Presumption in favour of sustainable development Paragraph 34 Developer contributions Paragraph 91 Planning decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places Paragraph 108 Sustainable modes of Transport Paragraph 110 Priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements Paragraph 111 Requirement for Transport Assessment Paragraph 117 Effective use of land Paragraph 118 Recognition undeveloped land can perform functions Paragraph 122 Achieving appropriate densities Paragraph 127 Need for Good design which is sympathetic to local character and history Paragraph 130 Planning permission should be refused for poor design Paragraph 170 Planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment
9.0 MAIN ISSUES:
• Principle • Sustainability & Climate Change • Housing Density • Housing Mix • Affordable Housing • Accessible Housing
Page 18 • Internal Space Standards • Layout, Design and Appearance • Amenity & Spacing Considerations • Landscaping and Trees • Highways and Parking • Drainage • Greenspace • Planning Obligations
10.0 APPRAISAL:
Principle
10.01 The site is on land which is allocated for housing within the SAP (HG2-85 & HG1-207). Consequently the principle of a residential development on this site is considered acceptable. Furthermore, as the site is surrounded by existing residential properties, there would be no conflict with existing uses. The site is also considered to be within a highly sustainable location, with a small convenience store, take-away and dental surgery located adjacent to the site on Stainbeck Road at the junction with Potternewton Lane. The Local Centre of Meanwood is within walking distance with access to a wider range of services and facilities. The site also has good links to public transport with bus stops on the surrounding roads.
Sustainability & Climate Change
10.02 The Council declared a climate change emergency on the 27th March 2019 in response to the UN’s report on Climate Change.
10.03 The Planning Act 2008, alongside the Climate Change Act 2008, sets out that climate mitigation and adaptation are central principles of plan-making. The NPPF makes clear at paragraph 148 and footnote 48 that the planning system should help to shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008.
10.04 As part of the Council’s Best Council Plan 2019/20 to 2020/21, the Council seeks to promote a less wasteful, low carbon economy. The Council’s Development Plan includes a number of planning policies which seek to meet this aim, as does the NPPF. These are material planning considerations in determining planning applications.
10.05 Existing planning policies seek to address the issue of climate change by ensuring that development proposals incorporate measures to reduce the impact of non-renewable resources. Core Strategy EN1 requires all developments of 10 dwellings or more to reduce the total predicted carbon dioxide emissions to achieve 20% less than the Building Regulations Target Emission Rate and provide a minimum of 10% of the predicted energy needs of the development from low carbon energy.
Page 19 10.06 The applicant has submitted a sustainability appraisal setting out the methods to be employed to achieve the policy requirements set out within EN1 and EN2. This will generally be a ‘fabric first’ approach with an enhanced specification for heat loss elements for external walls, floors and roofs. An air pressure test of 5 has been specified and highly efficient boilers have been included which would have heating controls for residents. Other measures to be adopted would be the use of thermal blocks, 100% dedicated low energy lighting, windows & doors to be 25% more efficient that minimum standards. The report concludes that a 20.24% reduction in site-wide carbon emissions can be achieved which exceeds current planning policy.
10.07 In addition the proposed dwellings will be built to maximise solar gain to reduce energy consumption for heating. The report also states that photo voltaic panels on the appropriate roof slopes will be installed to equate to 64.58KWp (Kilowatt of Power). In real terms this equates to a total of 260 panels of PV to be installed. Based on an average of 6 panels per property, a total of 43 plots would be installed with PV. Furthermore, the applicant has committed to providing water butts to each dwelling. With these measures, the development would achieve over a 20% reduction (20.24%) in carbon emissions and would therefore comply with Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy
10.08 Core Strategy Policy EN2 requires residential developments of 10 or more dwellings (including conversion) where feasible to meet a maximum water consumption standard of 110 litres per person per day. The dwellings will be designed to encourage less water consumption with restricted water flow taps, showers etc. This would equate to a standard of 109.30 litres per person per day and therefore complies with the aims of EN2.
10.09 Subject to any approval, a condition can reasonably applied requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the Sustainability report and that confirmation of the works have been undertaken. Furthermore, each dwelling would have an Electric Vehicle Charging Point in line with Policy EN8 (1 per each dwelling house and 1 for every 10 parking spaces for the apartments). With regard to Policy EN4 (district heating network), the location of the site is not considered to be currently viable with no future plans for the network to expand to this area. It is therefore considered that Policy EN4 is not applicable in this instance.
10.10 Given that the development proposes tree loss, the applicant has submitted a sustainability statement in relation to this element of the proposal. It states that the new development requires 56 tree removals and that the trees to be removed have very limited species diversity, being almost entirely comprised of Cherry (14), Sorbus (22) and Sycamore (11) with Hawthorn shrubs, Leylandii Cypress and willow comprising the remaining trees.
10.11 The proposed new tree planting scheme includes 90 new trees. These trees are of a diverse species mix of Acer Platanoides, Acer Rubrum,
Page 20 Betula Utilis, Carpinus Betulus, Prunus Avium, Preunus Subhirtella, Pyrus Calleryana, Quercus Robur, Malus Sp, Sorbus Aria, Sorbus Aucuparia Aspentifolia, Sorbus Embley and Tikia Cordata.
10.12 Increasing tree species diversity is an important aspect of increasing resilience to climate change and to reduce the risk from pests and pathogens. It is suggested that planting a diverse range of tree species is beneficial in carbon storage. The planting of the diverse range of suitable species in key locations throughout the site will provide some mitigation for the required tree removals.
10.13 The planting of a high proportion of larger nursery stock (extra heavy standard (32), Heavy standard (53), Select standard (4) and 4 semi mature 30-35cm girth) will provide the site with younger age classes which will provide a more diverse age structure. Whilst the new development inevitably requires some tree removal, the scheme minimises environmental loss and maintains a healthy and diverse tree population that is resilient and able to provide the many eco-system benefits urban trees provide. It should be noted that the applicant has committed to meeting the requirements of Policy LAND2 and provide 3 new trees for every one lost and this matter is discussed at paragraphs 10.37 and 10.38 below.
Housing Density
10.14 Policy H3 of the Core Strategy sets out appropriate densities of housing, for urban areas this is considered to be 40 dwellings per hectare. The site measures 5ha meaning that the capacity would be 200 dwellings for this site. At 153 dwellings, the density is just over 30 dwellings per hectare and is therefore below the policy requirement set out within Policy H3. It is noted that the SAP allocations for these sites gives a minimum recommended capacity of 113 units across both sites which would give a density of just over 22 dwellings per hectare. There are a number of site constraints which mean that the density proposed is considered to be acceptable. These include a large number of mature trees, a culverted watercourse and the need to provide a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) on site. The need to provide suitable private amenity spaces for the properties also has an impact upon the overall density of the site. Subject to an assessment of space (addressed in the section on design and amenity considerations), it is considered that the density of this development is acceptable due to the overall constraints of the site.
Housing Mix
10.15 In terms of housing mix the proposal provides a range of 2-4 bedroom properties in the following mix:
• 55 x 2 beds = 36% • 72 x 3 beds = 47% • 26 x 4 beds = 17%
Page 21 10.16 This broadly accords with policy H4 which requires between 30%-80% 2 beds: 20%-70% 3 beds and 0%-50% 4+ beds. Whilst the proposal does not provide for any one or five bedroom properties, the policy does not require this. The scheme also proposes 24 flats which equates to a total of 16% of the development as a whole. Again, this would be in line with policy H4 which requires between 10%-50% to be flats.
Affordable Housing
10.17 Policy H5 requires the provision of affordable which in this location is 7% of the total amount, equalling 11 units. The applicants have provided for this in the layout and demonstrated the anticipated positions of these properties. 7 of those units are proposed to be 2 bed dwellings and 4 are proposed to be flats. The proposal is therefore considered to be complaint with Policy H5 subject to an s106 to ensure implementation.
Accessible Housing
10.18 In terms of accessibility of the properties themselves, the applicant has confirmed and have indicated on a plans that the development would meet the requirements of Core Strategy Policy H10 by being designed to ensure that 30% of the properties (46 units) meet the accessible and adaptable dwellings standards of Part M of the Building Regulations and 2% (3 units) being wheelchair user dwellings. Such requirements and the distribution and mix of units across the site can be controlled via a condition. In conclusion, the proposal is considered to comply with relevant Core Strategy Policies with regard to residential accessibility.
Internal Space Standards
10.19 The dwellings fully comply with Policy H9 of the Core Strategy with regard to space standards with the exception of bedroom 4 within the Lydford house type which has an internal area of 5.7m2 (where policy says it should be a minimum of 7.5m2). There are 15 Lydford house types within the proposed development which equates to 9.8% of the overall scheme. The table below demonstrates that each of the proposed house types adheres to and exceeds the policy requirements for overall floor area.
House Type Number of Proposed DCLG/ H9 Difference bedrooms units size Minimum (Sqm) (Sqm) Standard (Sqm)
Braxton 3 101.45 99 +2.45 (NB31) Elliston (NB41) 4 116.1 112 +4.1 Lydford (PA42) 4 102.1 97 +5.1 Byford (NA32) 3 90.6 84 +6.6 Ashenford 2 71.61 70 +1.61 (NA20)
Page 22 Kingdale 3 96.62 93 +3.62 (NT31) Apartment type 2 63.2 61 +1.2 1 Apartment type 2 63.2 61 +1.2 2
10.20 Officers consider that the slight shortfall in overall space within bedroom 4 of one house type in an otherwise fully compliant scheme would not create any significant residential amenity concerns and is therefore considered to be broadly in line with policy.
Layout, Design and Appearance
10.21 The surrounding pattern of development is predominantly residential in nature with a mix of house types. To the south, within the Beckhill estate, the dwellings are predominantly terraced and are within a linear formation, pockets of greenspace surround these dwellings. To the north, the dwellings are more closely spaced with a mix of semi-detached and terraced properties.
10.22 The proposed development would have two distinct areas brought together with a central area of greenspace. The layout of each area would be broadly consistent with the dwellings to the north with a central spine road with cul-de-sacs off of this road. The dwellings would be predominantly semi-detached with some small runs of terraces (no greater than 3 properties per run). The proposed layout is considered to be acceptable and would harmonise well within its surroundings.
10.23 The proposals would comprise of 6 different house types, all of which would be two or two & half storeys in height of brick and tile construction. The scale and traditional design of the dwellings is considered compatible with the surrounding area. The two & half storey dwellings would have a small, pitched roof dormer to their front elevation and is also considered to be acceptable and compatible with the surrounding pattern of development. Corner turning units are proposed on plots which face onto two roads. This is considered appropriate and would ensure that the development has an acceptable level of impact upon the visual amenities of the surrounding area.
10.24 The proposed apartments would be three storeys with a hipped roof, located toward the southern part of the site. As the land is at a lower level than the adjacent road (Beckhill Approach), the proposed scale of the apartments is considered acceptable. The design of these blocks would also be acceptable and compatible with the wider development. The materials proposed would also harmonise with the surrounding area. As such, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable with regard to the overall design and appearance and would comply with current planning policies.
Page 23 10.25 Works are also proposed in land to the south within an area designated as greenspace. These works are for the drainage attenuation and require a tank to be installed underground A maintenance access road would be formed from Farm Hill North. Officers consider that this would be a minor incursion to this area of land which, once completed, would be reverted back to greenspace and used by the wider public. Visually, the land would not be different to that currently experienced and therefore, in principle, officers raise no objections to this element of the proposal
Amenity and Spacing Considerations
10.26 The layout, spacing and garden areas all meet the design and guidance advice of the adopted SPG Neighbourhoods for Living. The layout of the dwellings is considered to provide acceptable spacing between dwellings. Most dwellings have side driveways with sufficient space for 2 vehicles. Where frontage parking is proposed, this is kept to a minimum and there are no large areas of parking together. This allows for a well landscaped scheme that ensures that the development is not dominated by parking.
10.27 Where the development shares a boundary with existing dwellings, there is acceptable distances between properties. To the north there is an existing green corridor which separates the proposed development from the existing dwellings along Stainbeck Road. There is a significant levels difference between the existing dwellings within the Beckhills estate to the south and the proposed dwellings which ensures that there would be no issue with regard to residential amenity for these properties. To the east, the distance between the proposed dwellings (plots 11-22) would comply with the requirements set out within Neighbourhoods for Living. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable with regard to protecting existing and proposed residential amenities.
10.28 The majority of dwellings comply with the 10.5m minimum garden depths as set out within the SPG. There are a small number of dwellings which do fall short of this and typically achieve between 8.5m and 9.5m to the boundary. However, it should be noted that part of the rationale behind requiring 10.5m length of garden is to provide a reasonable degree of separation between properties to protect privacy as opposed to providing a suitable size of garden. Notwithstanding this, all dwellings provide a good level of private amenity space meeting (and in most cases exceeding) the requirement for two thirds of the total floor space. The proposed apartments would have a minimum of 25% in line with policy. On balance, officers consider that whilst there is a minor shortfall with a small number plots with regard to the 10.5m distance to the boundary, the dwellings provide a good level of garden space which is fully in accordance with the requirement for two thirds (or 25% for apartments) of the total floor space.
Greenspace
10.29 In line with Policy G4 of the Core Strategy, the development would provide a policy compliant level of on-site greenspace. This would comprise of a
Page 24 central portion of greenspace running roughly north-south which is proposed to contain a Multi-Use Games Area & an informal play space as well as paths within a woodland type setting. It would connect into the existing green link running roughly east-west. The newly created greenspace would also connect the existing Beckhills estate with the new development and allow for much improved pedestrian links. It is proposed the Leeds City Council Parks & Countryside team will undertake the work using monies secured via s106 as part of this development with further consultation work with the community to be carried out before a final layout of greenspace is agreed. Conditions will be attached to the approval for final agreed details of the layout of the greenspace. The amount required for the greenspace is £475,514.39 which will be secured via a S106 agreement.
10.30 Off-site drainage attenuation works are proposed within an area of greenspace in land roughly to the south of the development. This would require the installation of an underground tank with a short access road from Farm Hill North. Policy G6 of the Core Strategy states that where the greenspace is to be replaced by an area of at least equal size, accessibility and quality in the same locality, then development of greenspace can be supported. In this instance, once the works are complete then there would be no loss of greenspace either in terms of size, accessibility or in quality. It is therefore considered that the proposed off-site drainage attenuation measures are acceptable in this location.
Landscaping and Trees
10.31 As existing, the site contains a large number of trees most of which are located around the site boundary. A large cluster is located toward the south eastern part of the site (adjacent to Beckhill Approach), another cluster along the site frontage with Potternewton Road and a number of trees along the green corridor to the north of the site. Internally, the majority of the trees are self-seeded as have a limited ecological and biodiversity value. The submitted information states that there are 159 items of woody vegetation which comprises of 142 individual trees and 17 groups of trees, shrubs or hedges. It is noted that the quality of these trees/vegetation varies significantly with a number of trees categorised as ‘U’ value trees which are not considered to have any amenity value which could be for a number of reasons including the overall health of the tree.
10.32 The proposed development will require the removal of a number of these trees as they are situated in the footprint of the development or their retention and protection throughout the development is not considered suitable. In total, 56 trees and 3 wooded vegetation groups would be removed for the development. There are a number of engineering factors that preclude the retention of many of the trees within the site.
10.33 Due to the relatively steep topography of the site, earthworks are required to achieve suitable road gradients and development platforms for the housing, including cutting and filling on a widespread basis across the site.
Page 25
10.34 To facilitate construction of the residential plots, it is proposed to turn over the made ground that is present to remove obstruction up to a depth of 5m. It is not considered practical to leave ‘islands’ of elevated ground where existing trees are present when undertaking this work as this has the potential to cause excessive obstruction to the movement of site traffic and construction materials. This would also be at odds with the need for retaining structures throughout the development.
10.35 A surface water drain is proposed along the North West boundary of the site adjacent to the culverted Stain Beck and the existing public sewer. The location of this sewer is restricted by the topography of the site therefore, to provide the sewer and the required easements either side of it, a number of trees need to be removed as these would be over the easements required for the sewer.
10.36 Taking the above into account, officers consider that the tree loss proposed is acceptable when balancing against the benefits of the proposal, the allocation of the site for housing and the constraints of the land including drainage and levels. Notwithstanding this, any replacement landscaping would need to take into account proposed trees for their amenity value as well as for their biodiversity and climate implications.
10.37 Planning Policy LAND2 requires a 3 for 1 replacement for trees on site. For this scheme that would require 168 trees to be re-planted to compensate for the 56 trees proposed to be removed. Site constraints mean that it would not be possible to achieve this requirement whilst providing a housing development that would be viable and suitable for the surrounding area. The proposed landscaping scheme shows a total of 90 replacement trees on site whilst retaining 96 existing trees. Of the 90 new trees proposed, the majority of these would be extra heavy standard and semi mature which will ensure that the planted trees will have an established amenity value from the outset. They would be planted in areas which have higher levels of public amenity including to the north, along the green corridor as well as within the area of proposed greenspace which would have a positive impact within the area and for all users. The applicant has committed to a 3:1 replacement being delivered as a result of this development. However, as the council will deliver some of the on-site landscaping following future internal design and public consultation, it cannot be confirmed with absolute certainty how many trees will be delivered on site. The applicant will deliver the housing and planting within the housing zones but the city council will deliver the central spine in between these areas plus the linear section along the western boundary.
10.38 Accordingly it is proposed to plant further 78 trees (or however many trees is required to bring the total to 168 trees) are proposed to be planted off site within neighbouring council land. Specific locations are to be confirmed once discussions with Parks & Countryside have taken place however, a commitment from the Developer has been given to the planting of these trees off-site. This will be secured through a Legal Agreement.
Page 26
10.39 Landscaping more generally would include street trees and hedge, shrub and bulb planting which would increase the amenity value provided by the site in the longer term. A landscaping masterplan has been provided as part of the application however it is considered appropriate to attach conditions to the scheme requiring further details of the landscaping especially within front gardens. This would be to ensure that the shrubs and hedges are also of a semi mature variety to provide higher levels of established amenity from the outset.
10.40 Works are also proposed in land to the south of the site where the drainage attenuation tank is proposed to be located. It would be located close to the existing road, Farm Hill North, with the tank to be situated a significant distance below ground. The position of the tank has been moved from its original location due to concern raised over potential impacts upon existing trees located close to Potternewton Lane. Its new position removes that concern as it would be far enough away from the trees so as not to impact upon.
10.41 Once the works have been completed the land would be returned to its previous state and be used as greenspace. Landscaping details relating to this particular area are scant and therefore it is considered appropriate that conditions are attached which require a detailed landscaping scheme for this area.
10.42 Subject to the conditions mentioned above, officers consider that the proposed landscaping scheme provides an acceptable balance between replacement, semi mature trees and a development that harmonises well within its surroundings.
Highways and Parking
10.43 The site forms part of the SAP under two separate allocations with National Cycle Route 668/Leeds Core Cycle Network Route 9 running parallel to the application site. These networks would be unaffected by the development. The submitted Transport Assessment demonstrates that the site is within 400m walking distance of local services and major bus routes with connections to a major public interchange in the city centre. Officers therefore consider that the site meets with the accessibility indicators as set out within the Core Strategy.
10.44 The development would be served by two accesses, one off Potternewton Lane with the other accessed from Beckhill Approach. Each access would serve roughly half of the development each with the central area of greenspace dividing the site. The proposals would require the formation of a new junction on to Potternewton Lane as well as onto Beckhill Approach. The submitted plans indicate that adequate visibility and geometry can be achieved at both junctions. Visibility of 2.4m x 90m to the left and 2.4m x 70m to the right are provided for the junction of Potternewton Lane within the adopted highway in accordance with the recommendations of the Street
Page 27 Design Guide and in relation to recorded traffic speeds. Junction radii of 6m are proposed and are considered acceptable given that existing junctions on the route are consistent with this. Swept path analysis also demonstrates the suitability of both junction layouts.
10.45 The submitted Transport Assessment provides acceptable vehicle trip rates based on the proposed housing mix. This estimates 75 and 85 two-way trips in the AM and PM peak hours respectively and predicts distributions based on Journey to Work Census data. The resulting flows indicate that the development would add the following trips to local junctions:
• Potternewton Lane/Stainbeck Road/Stainbeck Avenue (40AM and 46PM two-way trips) • Stainbeck Road/Bowman Crescent/Beckhill Approach (43AM and 50PM two-way trips) • Stainbeck Road/Stainbeck Lane (26AM and 31 PM two-way trips)
Existing traffic count data is provided with some traffic growth in order to model the operation of the junctions to take into account future year conditions. These are shown to continue to operate well within capacity and therefore there are no objections to this.
10.46 The Site Allocations Plan does not identify any site specific highway requirements however, the Transport Background Paper to the SAP identifies congestion hotspots around the city and this includes the roundabout at Potternewton Lane/Scott Hall Road. The submitted Transport Assessment for the application indicates the development will generate 11AM and 12PM trips at the junction and consideration should be given to providing a contribution toward improvements. Transport Policy have been consulted regarding the predicted growth at the junction and consider that the predicted impact of the development would not warrant a contribution and therefore, on balance, no objection is raised to this.
10.47 Each of the proposed dwellings would have 2 off street parking spaces though the flats (plots 126-149) would have 1 space per unit (totalling 24 spaces). Officers have no objection to the parking provision for the dwellings but do recognise that the provision for the flats is below the recommended amount of 1.25-1.5 spaces per 2 bed flat using the Street Design Guide (equating to between 30 & 36 spaces), furthermore, no visitor parking is provided for the flats. Officers consider that, on balance, providing 1 space per flat would be acceptable given the sustainable location of the development and subject to a condition being attached to any approval which would prevent these spaces being allocated to specific flats then there are no objections to the overall parking provision for the development
10.48 Highways Officers require that all new internal road would built to an adoptable standard and officered up for adoption under Section 38 of the Highways Act. The speed limit for the proposed development should be 20mph in accordance with the Street Design Guide.
Page 28
10.49 Subject to the required conditions and s106 contributions towards bus stop improvements, Residential Travel Plan Fund and the monitoring fee for the Travel Plan, the scheme is considered to be acceptable in highways terms in accordance with Policy T2 of the Core Strategy.
Drainage
10.50 It is proposed to drain the development by installing an off-site drainage attenuation tank in land to the south of the application site. It is not possible to install the proposed tank within the development boundary due to site constraints. Within the site, drainage would comprise of a series of sewers connecting into 1 main sewer which would run adjacent to the existing watercourse. This would then flow south into the off-site attenuation tank. This tank would control the flow of water into the adjacent watercourse (Stain Beck). Officers raise no objections to the principle of these off site attenuation measures.
10.51 In order to ensure ongoing maintenance of the tank, an access track would need to be formed. Because of the location of the proposed tank, it would be close to Farm Road North which means that there would only need to be a short access track. This would not lead to any significant incursion within the greenspace, furthermore, as it would only be used infrequently, it can be constructed using materials appropriate for its location.
10.52 Subject to conditions relating to drainage and landscaping, officers raise no objection to the drainage proposals.
Planning Obligations
10.53 The following planning obligations are required to make the application acceptable and will be secured via a Section 111 agreement, to which a Sec. 106 Agreement, will be appended:
• Affordable Housing (11 properties in total) • Real time passenger information display at a cost of £10,000 at bus stop 10858 • Bus shelter to be provided at a cost of £13,000 at bus stop 11123 • Travel Plan review fee £3384 • Residential Travel Plan Fund £82,082 • Commuted Sum for the Council to undertake the on-site greenspace works £475,514.39 • Local Employment & Skills Initiative • Off-site tree planting, to meet the requirements of Policy LAND2, within the Local Area
10.54 From 6 April 2010 guidance was issued stating that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for development if the obligation is all of the following:
Page 29 • (i) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations should be used to make acceptable development which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. • (ii) directly related to the development. Planning obligations should be so directly related to proposed developments that the development ought not to be permitted without them. There should be a functional or geographical link between the development and the item being provided as part of the agreement. • (iii) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Planning obligations should be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development. 10.55 According to the guidance, unacceptable development should not be permitted because of benefits or inducements offered by a developer which are not necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms.
10.56 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was adopted by Full Council on the 12th November 2014 and was implemented on the 6th April 2015. The application site is located within Zone 3, where the liability for residential development is set at the rate of £5 per square meter. This information is not material to the decision and is provided for Member’s information only.
11.0 CONCLUSION
11.01 In light of the above, the application is considered to be acceptable. The site is allocated for housing within the SAP and would provide a mix of house types in accordance with policy. It would be fully compliant with regard to the planning obligations and the form of the development is not considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, nor would it have a harmful impact on highway safety, subject to appropriate planning conditions.
11.02 The proposed landscaping scheme is also considered acceptable and would provide for semi-mature and extra heavy standard trees which would offer a higher level of amenity value from the start. The development would also fully comply with sustainability/climate change policies. The application is recommended for approval subject to a legal agreement to secure Travel Plan contributions, bus stop improvements, affordable housing and a greenspace contribution, as well as the conditions as outlined.
Background Papers: Planning application file. 19/01665/FU Certificate of ownership: site owned by Leeds City Council
Page 30 19/01665/FU
Road Grove
NORTH AND EAST PLANS PANEL © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 31 PRODUCED BY CITY DEVELOPMENT, GIS MAPPING & DATA TEAM, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL SCALE : 1/2500 ° 19/01665/FU
Road Grove
NORTH AND EAST PLANS PANEL © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 32 PRODUCED BY CITY DEVELOPMENT, GIS MAPPING & DATA TEAM, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL SCALE : 1/2500 ° Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8
Originator: Glen Allen
Tel:
Report of the Chief Planning Officer
NORTH AND EAST PLANS PANEL
Date: 19th December 2019
Subject: Planning Application 19/00835/FU – APPEAL by Mr A Jonisz of 22 Park Lane Mews against the decision to refuse planning application for the raising of roof to form habitable rooms; two storey part first floor side/rear extension
The appeal was dismissed 4th November 2019
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Alwoodley Equality and Diversity
Community Cohesion
Yes Ward Members consulted ( referred to in report) Narrowing the Gap
RECOMMENDATION: Members are asked to note the following appeal decision.
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.01 This application sought planning permission for the alterations that would raise the roof height of the dwelling to allow rooms in the roof space, and to provide a two storey and part first floor side /rear extension.
1.02 Officers assessed the application against the adopted Development Plan policies and focus was placed on Core Strategy Policy P10 – Design, T2 – Transport matters and sustainability, GP5 and BD6 that deal with planning matters and alterations to existing buildings and on advice in the Householder Design Guide (HHDG)
1.03 Officer recommendation was to grant planning permission as it was considered that the proposal complied with the policies of the Council and in particular there would be no detriment to the street by reason of the alterations proposed, that there would be no detriment to the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties by reason of overlooking, overshadowing or noise generation and that as the proposal did not alter the existing level of off street car parking currently provided on site Page 35 there would be no material detriment to the users of the public highway as a result of this development.
1.04 Contrary to the Officers recommendation of approval, Members of North and East Plans Panel resolved to withhold planning permission for the below reason:
The Local Planning Authority considers the proposal would create a demand for parking which cannot be accommodated within the site. This would increase the potential for on-street to take place in an area which is already heavily parked to the detriment of the free and safe operation of the local highway network. The development is therefore contrary to adopted Core Strategy (2014) Policy T2 and saved Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) Policy GP5 and the guidance contained within the NPPF which seeks to ensure the highway impacts of development are acceptable.
1.05 The decision was subsequently issued on 26th June 2019, and appealed shortly thereafter.
2.0 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE INSPECTOR
2.01 The Inspector identified the main issues to be:
• The effect of the proposed development on highway and pedestrian safety, with particular regard to the adequacy of parking provision.
3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BY THE INSPECTOR
3.01 The Inspector deals with issues raised by the numerous objectors that are not related to his main issue as identified above first. These relate to the impact of the proposal of the general street scene and the impact of the proposal on neighbour amenity.
3.02 Commenting that “…the council does not refer to the effect of the proposed development…” on these matters he then agrees that notwithstanding the concerns raised by local residents that there will be no detrimental impact on the street scene generally and on neighbours amenity in particular.
3.03 The Inspector notes that “Park Lane Mews is a narrow road with footpaths along either side of part of the main east to west route through the Mews and at the corners of the entrance of the first cul-de-sac. Within other parts of the Mews there are no footpaths and the boundaries to the front of the houses are immediately adjacent to the highway.”
3.04 The Inspector also noted that at the time of his site visit, being 09.20am, “…a small number of vehicles that were parked either at the side of the highway, straddling the highway and property boundaries or straddling the highway and footpaths”. It should be noted by Plans Panel that this site visit was an unaccompanied one (as the Inspector did not require access to the appeal site) and so no notification of the date and time of their site visit was given to either the Officers of the Council or the local residential or appellant.
3.05 The Inspector then references the evidence supplied by third parties of the situation at other times of the day acknowledging that the Mews “at peak times…..is under Page 36 considerable parking stress with a high number of vehicles being parked on the highway or straddling property boundaries or footpaths.”
3.06 Acknowledging that the actual number of useable car parking spaces that are available was in dispute between the Council and the appellant, and the additional information supplied by the appellant that a car can fit within the existing garage the Inspector concedes that the provided dimensions of the garage and the spaces claimed by the appellant are below the Councils stated standards and thus “it is unlikely that it (the garage) would be convenient or regularly used to park a vehicle” and the conclusion come to by the Inspector is that “technically the site can only accommodate one car parking space which meets the required measurements of the HDG SPD.”
3.07 The conclusion drawn is that whilst the current development may not create an immediate need for additional parking spaces…..it is highly likely that the additional rooms created as part of the proposed development would generate a demand … in the future” with the result being that those cars would park on the highway.
3.08 Turning to the evidence submitted by third parties and the concerns of the Highway, the Inspector concedes that the Mews is “either at, or very close to its practical capacity.” And thus the development would have a “harmful effect on highway and pedestrian safety in the area.” The Inspector then emphasised that the corner location of the appeal site on the Mews would exacerbate this safety concern.
3.09 The Inspector concluded that the appeal should therefore be dismissed as being contrary to GP5 and T2 of the Local Development Framework
4.0 IMPLICATIONS
4.01 It is clearly a good thing that Members concerns in regards to this proposal have been vindicated by this decision.
4.02 The Inspector was very careful to draw out of his observations of the specific circumstances of this case in the nature of the Mews, the highway layout and the observations made at the site visit and the evidence submitted by third parties as well as that of the council.
4.03 The conclusions drawn by the Inspector are those of taking the case proposed on its individual merits. Particular regard was paid to the car parking levels that currently exist on the Mews overall, the lack of separate pedestrian facilities in certain parts of the Mews, the corner plot aspect of the application site and notably, that the existing provision on site despite been shown to be capable of accommodating some off street parking was both substandard to the current council’s standards and inconvenient for regular everyday use. Of particular note in the Inspector’s comments is the Mews is at or near to capacity already.
4.04 This is considered to be a subtle mix of factors all falling into place in this particular case that justify the conclusions reached and this single decision should not be used as a precedent. Rather the details of the case should be assessed and conclusions drawn on the facts of each case, including where necessary evidence provided by third parties that is otherwise not readily apparent from an inspection of the site during the normal working day.
Page 37
Background Papers Planning Application File 19/00835/FU Inspector’s Decision Letter Dated 4th November 2019
Page 38 19/00835/FU
NORTH AND EAST PLANS PANEL © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 39 PRODUCED BY CITY DEVELOPMENT, GIS MAPPING & DATA TEAM, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL SCALE : 1/500 °
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 September 2019
by F Cullen BA(Hons) MSc DipTP MRTPI IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4 November 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/W/19/3232770 22 Park Lane Mews, Shadwell, Leeds LS17 8SN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr A Jonisz against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref 19/00835/FU, dated 11 February 2019, was refused by notice dated 27 June 2019. • The development proposed is a two storey extension to rear and side with new roof to create bedrooms.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matters
2. I am aware that Leeds City Council Core Strategy Selective Review (CSSR) (September 2019) has been adopted since the Council’s decision notice was issued. Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the implications of this for the appeal. The Council has confirmed that, in its opinion, the CSSR has no bearing on the merits of the appeal. I have therefore made my determination having regard to policies within the Leeds Core Strategy (CS) (2014) and saved policies within the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (Review 2006). I am satisfied that no interested party has been prejudiced by this approach.
3. The Council has confirmed that it is in the early stages of reviewing its car parking standards and in the process of preparing a draft Transport Supplementary Planning Document. Given that this document is still in draft form and could, therefore, be subject to further amendments, I have not taken it into consideration in my determination of the appeal.
4. As part of the appeal the appellant has submitted a revised plan1 that was not submitted to the Council as part of the planning application. The plan illustrates the potential to accommodate three cars within the site, one in the garage and two on the driveway to the front of the house. It is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the Council, and on which interested people’s views were sought. Therefore, I have not taken this plan into consideration in my determination of the appeal.
1 Drawing 8403/02 C https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 40 Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/19/3232770
Main Issue
5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway and pedestrian safety, with particular regard to the adequacy of parking provision.
Reasons
6. The appeal site is located on a corner plot at the entrance of the first of two cul-de-sacs within a small residential mews development. The appeal property is a detached, two storey house constructed of brown brick with a tiled roof. It has a small grassed area and driveway to the front with a single storey garage to the side and an enclosed garden to the rear. The proposed development comprises raising the roof height of the building to form two additional rooms and a two storey, part first floor, side and rear extension.
7. In the reasons for refusal the Council does not refer to the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area or on the living conditions of the occupants of adjacent properties. I have had regard to the representations made by third parties concerning these issues and acknowledge the concerns raised. However, given the corner location of the appeal property within the mews and its detached nature, along with the proposed form and design of the extension and alterations and use of matching materials, I consider that the proposed development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the host building or the street scene within the immediately surrounding area.
8. In addition, given the proposed location of the extension and alterations, the separation distances between the appeal property and adjacent dwellings and the proposed location and nature of new windows and rooflights, I consider that the proposed development would not significantly harm the living conditions of the occupants of adjacent properties, with regard to privacy, light and outlook.
9. On the basis of the above, I have limited my consideration of the appeal to the effect of the proposed development on highway and pedestrian safety, with particular regard to the adequacy of parking provision.
10. Park Lane Mews is a narrow road with footpaths along either side of part of the main east to west route through the mews and at the corners of the entrance of the first cul-de-sac. Within other parts of the mews there are no footpaths and the boundaries to the front of the houses are immediately adjacent to the highway. When on site I noted that there appeared to be no parking restrictions within the mews and that vehicular movement was generally slow.
11. At the time of my site visit (9.20am) I observed a small number of vehicles that were parked either at the side of the highway, straddling the highway and property boundaries or straddling the highway and footpaths. However, from evidence provided by third parties it appears that, at peak times, the area is under considerable parking stress with a high number of vehicles being parked on the highway or straddling property boundaries or footpaths.
12. Policy T2 of the CS states that for new development, parking provision will be required for cars in accordance with current guidelines. In addition, Saved Policy GP5 of the UDP states that development proposals should seek to avoid problems of highway congestion and to maximise highway safety. The Council’s current guidelines for parking provision are outlined in its Householder Design
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 41 Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/19/3232770
Guide Supplementary Planning Document (HDG SPD) (2012), which states that generally two car parking spaces should be provided within a site in order to prevent on-street car parking which can cause congestion and be dangerous to highway safety. In addition, it confirms that in order to be considered as a parking space the parking area should measure 3m x 5m and a garage must measure at least 3m x 6m.
13. The number of car parking spaces that are currently available within the appeal site is disputed by the main parties. The appellant has provided information and photographic evidence to show that the site can accommodate three cars. This comprises space for one car in the garage with an internal space measuring approximately 2.6m x 6.8m and space for two cars on the driveway, one space measuring approximately 2.4m x 6.8m and another space measuring approximately 2.4m x 4.8m. However, the Council asserts that the site can only accommodate a maximum of two cars, one in the garage and one on the driveway and considers that, as the garage is small, it is unlikely that it would be convenient or regularly used to park a vehicle.
14. I recognise that the appellant has shown that it is possible to park three cars within the site and note that at the time of my site visit the garage was being used to park a vehicle. However, it is apparent that, as shown, all of the parking spaces are smaller than the dimensions stated within the Council’s current guidelines and that technically the site can only accommodate one car parking space which meets the required measurements of the HDG SPD.
15. I acknowledge that the proposed development may not create an immediate need for additional car parking spaces. However, I consider that it is highly likely that the additional rooms created as part of the proposed development would generate a demand for additional car parking spaces in the future. Given the lack of adequate car parking provision within the site, it would result in any additional cars being displaced onto the highway.
16. Taking into account the information submitted by third parties and the objection and concerns raised by the Council’s Transport Development Services, it is apparent that, at peak times, the on-street car parking within the mews is either at, or very close to, its practical capacity. It seems to me that any displaced car parking due to the proposed development would be likely to result in the further obstruction of the highway and footpaths and additional conflict between cars, other vehicles and pedestrians which would have a harmful effect on highway and pedestrian safety in the area. As such, even though any displaced car parking caused by the proposed development would be small, it would be critical within an area such as this where there is little capacity to absorb it.
17. Furthermore, given the location of the appeal property at the entrance of the first cul-de-sac within the mews, it is likely that any displaced car parking at this corner location would have the potential to have an even greater adverse impact on highway and pedestrian safety.
18. Accordingly, I consider that the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on highway and pedestrian safety by reason of inadequate parking provision. As such, it would conflict with Policy T2 of the CS and saved Policy GP5 of the UDP which, together, seek to ensure the adequate provision of car parking and maximise highway safety. In addition, it would fail to comply with guidance within the Council’s HDG SPD relating to parking and
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 42 Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/19/3232770
garages. It would also conflict with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework that plan for highway safety.
19. I have had regard to the appellant’s willingness to accept a condition to retain the garage for car parking in perpetuity. However, given that the garage is of a substandard size in relation to the current guidelines within the HDG SPD, I consider that this would be unlikely to reduce the potential for the displacement of car parking onto the highway in the future and its harmful effect on highway and pedestrian safety. Furthermore, I consider that such a condition would be difficult to monitor and enforce and place an undue onus on the Council.
Conclusion
20. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
F Cullen
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Page 43
Page 44 Page
C Exsiting parking spaces added july 2019
B Window amended Feb 2019 A Clients amendments October 2018 IN THE PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO DEAL WITH THE INITIAL DESIGN STAGE AND IS NOT INVOLVED PLEASE NOTE THAT BELMONT DESIGN SERVICES Main contractor to reduce or remove any foreseeable Main contractor to provide a pre-construction information and NOTE Boundaries, angles, and dimensions are to be Belmont Design of any discrepancy on, or between, B - Building Regulations Submission Belmont Design and must not be used, reproduced health and safety risks to anyone affected by the project health and safety file to help them comply with their duties, non-loadbearing prior to removal. (if possible) and to take steps reduce or control loading where relevant prior to work commencing. Client please note that you have duties under the CDM 2015 any risks that cannot be eliminated commencing. checked by the main contractor prior to work are to be confirmed load bearing and adequate for increased such as ensuring a construction phase plan PDF is prepared. or amended without prior consent from such. this drawing and any other related document. The main contractor is responsible for informing This drawing is not a working drawing, and only This drawing and its contents are the copyright of Written dimensions only to be used from this drawing. for clarification. for the purpose of following :- - if doubt exists consult Belmont Design Any existing walls to be removed are confirmed All existing walls, foundations and lintels or other structural items A - Planning Submission FOR : Mr Aaron Jonisz Dwg No. - 8403/02 C Date - September 2018 Proposed Floor Plans ROOF TO CREATE BEDROOMS PROPOSED TWO STOREY EXTENSION LS17 8SN LEEDS Scale - 1:50 22 PARK LANE MEWS TO REAR AND SIDE WITH NEW AT :
Belmont
231 High Street Wibsey, Bradford. www.belmontdesign.co.uk
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS Tel/Fax : 01274 690586 Design Services BD6 1QR Limited